Many people believe that digital technology can be roughly divided into two groups: those with computers and the Internet, and those without. Some people believe that this has substantial ethical implications and that there is a moral obligation to redress the imbalance. "Have-nots" may feel discriminated against or "socially excluded" and miss out on many life opportunities. Do you think everyone should have access to computers and the Internet, regardless of location, need, ability, or income? Who pays for services and education? Why isn't internet access mandatory for everyone?

Many people believe that digital technology can be roughly divided into two groups: those with computers and the Internet, and those without. Some people believe that this has substantial ethical implications and that there is a moral obligation to redress the imbalance. "Have-nots" may feel discriminated against or "socially excluded" and miss out on many life opportunities. Do you think everyone should have access to computers and the Internet, regardless of location, need, ability, or income? Who pays for services and education? Why isn't internet access mandatory for everyone?

Principles of Information Systems (MindTap Course List)

13th Edition

ISBN:9781305971776

Author:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Publisher:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Chapter14: Ethical, Legal, And Social Issues Of Information Systems

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 14SAT

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Many people believe that the digital world is separated between 'haves' and 'have nots' — those who have access to and can use a computer and the Internet, and others who do not. Some argue that this has major ethical consequences and that there is a moral need to address the discrepancy; the 'have nots' may feel discriminated against or'socially excluded,' and are missing out on numerous life possibilities. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of location, need, competency, or financial ability, should have access to computers and the Internet? If this is the case, who should supply the services and education, and who should foot the bill? If not, please explain why not everyone need access to the internet
In recent years, the Internet has become a vital medium for the free exchange of ideas. The spread of hate speech is facilitated by numerous individuals and organizations using social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. In online discussion groups, should free speech remain untamed? Should there be a zero-tolerance policy for hate speech on social media?
According to many, the digital world is being divided into ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – between those that have access and can use a computer and the Internet, and those that do not have such access. Some believe that this creates serious ethical implications and that there is a moral obligation to do something about the disparity; the ‘have nots’ may well feel discriminated against or feel ‘socially excluded’ and are missing out on many life opportunities. Do you feel that everyone everywhere should have access to computers and the Internet, regardless of location, need, competency, or ability to pay? If yes, who should provide the services and education and who should pick up the tab? If no, explain why not everyone needs access to the Internet.
The Internet has rapidly emerged as one of the most popular platforms for exercising one's right to free expression, and this trend is expected to continue. Facebook and Twitter are both being used by a large number of individuals and groups to disseminate hate speech. Given the nature of the medium, should the internet provide unrestricted free speech? Should there be limits placed on hate speech on social media?
Some claim that the Internet and computers have created a digital divide between the privileged and the impoverished. There are many who believe this has serious moral repercussions and that something ought to be done about the disparity between the haves and the have-nots since the latter may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized as a result. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of where they live, their financial situation, their level of education, or their ability to use computers, should have access to the Internet? Who should provide aid and education, and who should foot the bill? Exactly why shouldn't everyone have access to the web?
The use of the Internet as a forum for expressing one's right to free speech has become more significant in recent years. Both Facebook and Twitter are being used by a diverse range of individuals and organizations to facilitate the dissemination of hate speech. Should there be no restrictions put on what people may say in online discussion forums? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to restricting hate speech on social media?
Many people believe that the world of digital technology may be roughly divided into two groups: those who have access to a computer and the Internet, and others who do not. Some people believe that this has substantial ethical implications and that there is a moral obligation to remedy the imbalance. Those who "have nots" may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized, and they miss out on a wide variety of life opportunities as a result. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of where they live, their needs, their level of ability, or their financial means, ought should have access to computers and the Internet? Who is responsible for providing services and education, as well as footing the bill? Why isn't having access to the internet a must for everyone?
In recent years, the Internet has swiftly developed into a crucial instrument that may be used by individuals to exercise their right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Some people are spreading hate speech via social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. This is an unfortunate reality. Should there be no limits placed on people's ability to express themselves freely on the internet? What measures need to be taken by social media platforms in order to stop the propagation of anti-Semitic content?
In today’s technologically advanced society, is there really privacy? Based on your own personal experiences with social media (Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok, Instagram, or Snapchat), do you feel that individuals should be held accountable for their actions outside of the workplace? Is it possible that, due to the technological advances in smart phones, tablets, and other communication devices, workplace and personal privacy have meshed together to a point that what was once personal space is now fair game in the hiring and firing practices?
The Internet has emerged as a critical medium for the exercise of one's right to free expression. Many persons and groups use Facebook and Twitter to disseminate anti-Semitic content. Is internet speech a right or a privilege? How far should social media go to prevent the spread of hateful content?
As a consequence, the usage of the Internet has evolved into a necessary instrument for expressing one's right to free speech. Hate speech is extensively spread via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which are misused by a great number of people and even organisations. Should there be no restrictions on people's freedom to freely express themselves on the internet? When it comes to permitting abusive comments on social media sites, where should the line be drawn?
There is a broad spectrum of moral and ethical problems that have been brought to light as a result of the spread of computer technology, information technology, information networks, and the internet. Is there a way out of the predicament that we find ourselves in right now?